Clive Coleman wrote in message:

I don't troll this N/G but I do remember working on British Railways
when propelling was not allowed above 40mph. I expect I'll now get
some egghead to troll me, but this was always the case when working
tender first. (It also had the advantage of keeping the coal dust out
of your eyes).

Generally 45mph now for tender engines working backwards (at least, in all
the tender engines I've been in).

However, do note that this was not due to the dange of derailment. It was
due to poor visibilty.

Do remember that push-pull services with tank engines existed for a long
time during the big-four period and continued into BR days. These were not
troubled with visibility problems, as the driver could control the engine
from a suitable front coach - something which could be called the very first
DVT, but better known as the auto-coach

Ronnie
--
Volunteer guard on the Great Central Railway, Loughborough, Leicestershire
Visit the world's only double track preserved steam railway!
http://www.gcrailway.co.uk

In message , Ronnie Clark
writes
These were not troubled with visibility problems, as the driver could
control the engine from a suitable front coach - something which could
be called the very first DVT, but better known as the auto-coach
I have not forgotten the Yatton- Clevedon shuttle.
--
Clive Coleman

Ronnie Clark wrote:
Clive Coleman wrote in message:

I don't troll this N/G but I do remember working on British Railways
when propelling was not allowed above 40mph. I expect I'll now get
some egghead to troll me, but this was always the case when working
tender first. (It also had the advantage of keeping the coal dust out
of your eyes).


Generally 45mph now for tender engines working backwards (at least, in all
the tender engines I've been in).

However, do note that this was not due to the dange of derailment. It was
due to poor visibilty.

Do remember that push-pull services with tank engines existed for a long
time during the big-four period and continued into BR days. These were not
troubled with visibility problems, as the driver could control the engine
from a suitable front coach - something which could be called the very first
DVT, but better known as the auto-coach

Not much of a van, though. More like the DBSO on Liverpool St - Norwich
(not for too much longer).

Robin

Clive Coleman wrote to uk.transport.london on Wed, 10 Nov 2004:

I don't troll this N/G

Which N/Gs do you troll, then? (Sorry, couldn't resist!)
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 6 November 2004 with new photos

In message , Mrs Redboots
writes
Clive Coleman wrote to uk.transport.london on Wed, 10 Nov 2004:

I don't troll this N/G

Which N/Gs do you troll, then? (Sorry, couldn't resist!)
Uk.transport.
--
Clive Coleman

In article , S.Byers wrote:

Yet throughout the world we now have high speed passenger trains
pushed from the *rear* by high powered engines. There will be more
such crashes.

So, we just get rid of rear engines, and all the problems will be solved?

Presumably you'd like there to a single track from each possible destination
to each other possible destination, thereby removing all those nasty
dangerous points, too.

If you're looking for someone to blame, blame the idiot in the car. The
incident was his fault, not the railway companies'.

Brian
--
* * * * ** * * ** ** * *
* ** * * ** * * * *
* * * * * *

"Brian Widdas" wrote in message
...
In article , S.Byers
wrote:

Yet throughout the world we now have high speed passenger trains
pushed from the *rear* by high powered engines. There will be more
such crashes.

So, we just get rid of rear engines, and all the problems will be solved?

Please don't feed the trolls!

"S.Byers" wrote in message
om...
The extent of the damage in the Berkshire crash was caused by two
major factors apart from the speed of the train and the limited view
of the hero driver.

These we

1/ the rear power car, still under full power, caused much of the
crumpling and jack knifing, and

2/ the train would probably have remained upright if the points just
further on hadn't completely derailed it.

These two factors were not the fault of the suicidal car driver but
rather Railtrack's and First Great Western's.

Yet throughout the world we now have high speed passenger trains
pushed from the *rear* by high powered engines. There will be more
such crashes.

Neither RT (should be Network Rail btw) or FGW had any hand in the design of
the HST, as it came some 20 years before the existence of either! Secondly,
the rear power car was NOT under the full power. The train's 'black box
recorder' that the power notch was at zero and the brake handle was in
'emergency'. It was simply the inertia of the rear power car (which had
already derailed) that kept it moving. Much of what you have posted is quite
wrong.

--
*** http://www.railwayscene.co.uk/ ***
Rich Mackin (rich-at-richmackin-co-uk)
MSN: richmackin-at-hotmail-dot-com

Rich Mackin wrote:

Neither RT (should be Network Rail btw) or FGW had any hand in the
design of the HST, as it came some 20 years before the existence of
either! Secondly, the rear power car was NOT under the full power.
The train's 'black box recorder' that the power notch was at zero and
the brake handle was in 'emergency'. It was simply the inertia of the
rear power car (which had already derailed) that kept it moving. Much
of what you have posted is quite wrong.

It's Stephen Byers feeling arsey ;-)

In message , dwb
writes
econdly, the rear power car was NOT under the full power.
The train's 'black box recorder' that the power notch was at zero and
the brake handle was in 'emergency'. It was simply the inertia of the
rear power car (which had already derailed) that kept it moving.
Do you KNOW that?
--
Clive Coleman